Is it possible to convert creationists? Not likely. However, it is possible to surprise them, stop them in their tracks, and leave them mulling over the previously unconsidered defects of their position. I have witnessed this personally....
The way NOT to do this is by arguing over the evidence. Creationists are already aware of contrary scientific evidence and have rejected it. They (of the young earth variety) believe that the Bible is the
fully inerrant Word of God, completely true in science and history
This conviction is unshakeable ... until you explain that the Bible contains two contradictory accounts of creation. If we examine Genesis, Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 tell different stories. (For those of you who do not have a bible handy, you can view the translation of your choice here.) The first contradiction is the order of creation. In chapter 1, living things are created in approximately their proper sequence: the plants, the animals, and then humans, “male and female created he them”. In chapter 2, Adam is created before any other living thing, and Eve, at the very last, as a “help meet”. So not only is the order of creation different, but the attitude towards women is different. There is a cottage industry of apologists attempting to explain away these differences, yielding 1.5 million hits on Google. Their argument typically asks us to heed the supposed intent, and ignore the words, of the writer:
To know whether a contradiction has occurred, we have to know what the writer intended. If he intended to give a sequence of events in the second chapter, then it would be a contradiction. But, if he suspended his interest in the sequence of events in chapter 2, then he could not be accused of a contradiction.
Other apologists attempt to skew the sequence of creation set forth in chapter 2 by inserting a pluperfect tense which is not there in the original Hebrew. If these apologists were to admit these two chapters betray different attitudes, the game would be over. So they must pretend the sequence is the only discrepancy that matters. This is a poor excuse for a text that is supposed to be “inerrant” and “completely true”. It falls apart further in face of an additional fact: the agent of creation is different from chapter 1 to chapter 2. In the original Hebrew, the agent of creation in Chapter I of Genesis is "Elohim", whereas in chapter 2 is its “YHVH Elohim”. You can see a translation that preserves this original Hebrew here. This is usually translated into English as “God” in chapter 1 and “Lord God” in chapter 2, a seemingly insignificant difference. Most people in the U.S. are only looking a the English versions of the Bible, so the apologists can afford to ignore it. No so in the original. Elohim is a Hebrew word derived from Eloah, which denotes a female deity, singular, and im, a male plural suffix. So Elohim is literally "male&female Deities" (note: there are proponents of a singular Elohim theory who claim that Elohim is a proper name like “Jones”). In chapter 2, the creator is identified as "YHVH Elohim". YHVH Elohim gets translated into English as "Lord God" but more likely was intended to be "Lord of Gods". So it would appear that the author of chapter 2 is attempting to one-up the author of chapter 1, replacing gender-balanced Deities with a single dominant one, further betraying a different attitude. We conclude that scripture contains two different and incompatible creation stories, so it cannot be inerrant. The Creation Theory that posits the Bible as literal history is a complete nonstarter; a failure on its own terms.
Previous Atheist Digest Diaries: Intro and How I became an Atheist Intro and How I became an Atheist Glossary By Dr Rieux Next diaries by XNeeOhCon: Mon. August 23rd, About 10:30 AM PST- Ben Stein is a Moran, The Infinite Probability Fallacy. Wed. September 1st, About 5:30 PM PST - Conclusion diary Stay tuned for diaries from other users including Brahman Colorado, Commonmass, Dr. Rieux, Rfall, Something the Dog Said, Warren S, and Wilderness Voice. (Look for "Atheist Digest '10" in the Tags and Diary Title)